Diaz v Karim

A landlord who enters a tenant’s room and disposes of the tenant’s possessions without lawful authority commits wrongful interference with goods. The claim may be framed as trespass to goods, although conversion may be the more appropriate cause of action where goods are removed or disposed of. Damages are ordinarily assessed by reference to market value at the date of the interference. Where that assessment is impractical, the court may adopt a reasonable replacement-value approach, while allowing for the claimant’s failure to prove inflated valuations or losses lacking a market value.

The claimant, a tenant, alleged that his landlord unlawfully entered his room, changed the locks and removed or disposed of possessions while he was absent. He claimed approximately £1 million for trespass to goods and land, including valuable books, research materials, cash and consequential losses.

The defendant denied responsibility. The court found that he had unlawfully entered the room and disposed of the claimant’s possessions, but rejected most of the alleged items, values and consequential losses. The central issues were liability and the appropriate measure of damages.

1. Liability. The defendant was responsible for entering the claimant’s room on 3 September 2015, changing the locks and throwing out or otherwise disposing of the claimant’s possessions. The evidence of Mr Beqiri and the contemporaneous police material supported that conclusion. The defendant’s denial was rejected.
2. The conduct amounted to wrongful interference with goods. Although pleaded as trespass to goods, the cause of action might more appropriately have been pleaded as conversion because the goods were taken away, disposed of, or left to be removed by others. There was also trespass to land, but the entry and securing of the room caused no distinct loss.
3. The claimant failed to prove that he owned the rare and highly valuable books, valuable emeralds or £6,500 in cash. His valuations were unsupported and substantially exaggerated. The alleged loss of the Cambridge academic position was speculative and was not recoverable.
4. The ordinary measure of damage was the market value of the goods at the date of conversion or trespass. Academic papers, certificates and political documents had personal importance but no ascertainable market value. In the circumstances, a strict award based on the nominal value of old computers and clothing would be unfair. The court therefore assessed the loss by reference to approximate replacement value.
5. Doing the best possible on the evidence, damages were assessed at £5,000. The consequences for costs, any set-off against rent arrears, and possible transfer of detailed costs assessment to the Lambeth County Court were reserved for further submissions.

The judgment describes related possession proceedings brought by the defendant in the Lambeth County Court. It considered that this claim should have been transferred there and tried with those proceedings, but determined the present claim at first instance.